Engineering As Social Experimentation

By

Zyon N. Addison

A book report submitted to Dr. Stanley Ihekweazu in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Engineering Ethics – EAET 410

South Carolina State University

Fall Semester 2022

Abstract/Synopsis:

This report will discuss engineering as experimentation. Engineering projects can be

treated as social experiments because engineers manufacture products that are for the general

public. Products are made in ignorance and sometimes have an unknown outcome of how the

public will view them. Standard experiments and social experiments have a few similarities, but

the key difference is that they standard experiments can be in a controlled environment.

Engineering projects failures must be taken into consideration otherwise worse disasters can

happen, for example, the sinking of the Titanic. This report will also discuss in great detail and

go over how engineers must be responsible experimenters because they must hold paramount the

health, safety, and welfare of the public, and perform their job to the best of their ability.
3

Acknowledgments:

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to acknowledge the receipt of Ethics in Engineering written by Mike W.

Martin and Roland Schinzinger and dedicate this report to my school, South Carolina State

University. Thank you for your hard work and dedication. I would also like to thank South

Carolina State University for allowing me to advance my education level and work towards a

better career and lifestyle. Thank you.

Zyon Niziah Addison

Senior | SC State University

Mechanical Engineering
4

Table of Contents:

1. Abstract/Synopsis…………………………………………………………………Page 2

2. Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………Page 3

3. Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………Page 4

4. List of Figures……………………………………………………………………Page 5

5. List of Tables……………………………………………………………………Page 6

6. Introduction………………………………………………………………………Page 7

7. 4.1 Engineering as Experimentation………………………………………………Page 8

- 4.1.1 Similarities to Standard Experiments………………………………………Page 8

- 4.1.2 Learning from the Past……………………………………………………. Page 9

- 4.1.3 Contrasts with Standard Experiments……………………………………. Page 10

8. 4.2 Engineers as Responsible Experimenters……………………………………Page 11

- 4.2.1 Conscientiousness…………………………………………………………Page 11

- 4.2.2 Comprehensive Perspective………………………………………………Page 12

- 4.2.3 Moral Autonomy…………………………………………………………. Page 12

- 4.2.4 Accountability……………………………………………………………Page 13

- 4.2.5 A Balanced Outlook on Law………………………………………………Page 13

- 4.2.6 Industrial Standards………………………………………………………Page 14-15

9. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………Page 16
5

10. References……………………………………………………………………….Page 17
6

List of Figures:

1. None
7

List of Tables:

1. Table 4-1………………………………………………………………………Page 14
8

Introduction:

The constructing of the Titanic is still regarded as the one of the greatest marvels in

human history. The ship began construction in late March of 1909 and finished in May of 1911.

The ship departed its maiden voyage in April of 1912. The ship was proclaimed the greatest

achievement ever in engineering. It was the largest ship the world had ever seen, complete with a

tropical vine garden restaurant and the worlds first seagoing masseuse. It was believed to be a

fully safe ship and since it was also believed the ship could still sail with any four compartments

flooded, the Titanic was thought to be virtually unsinkable. Buoyed by such confidence the

captain allowed the ship to sail full speed at night in an area known for being infested with

icebergs. Inevitably the ship was struck on its side by a large iceberg resulting in the flooding of

five compartments. Enough time remained for passengers to evacuate the ship but there were not

enough lifeboats to accommodate everyone. To be specific, only 825 places were required in

lifeboats which only would cover roughly one-quarter of the ship’s entire capacity. No extra

precautions had seemed necessary for an ‘unsinkable’ ship, and thus the result; 1,552 dead.

There were many other reasons people speculated on which aided in the sinking of the Titanic,

such as the water entering the coal bunkers, and the coal burning fire onboard the ship caused an

explosion furthering the damage. However, what matters most is the lack of lifeboats and the

difficulty of launching those available prevented a safe exit for two-thirds of the persons on

board. The sinking of the Titanic remains a haunting image of technological complacency. Many

products produced through engineering should be regarded as risky activity, and with that being
9

said, engineering should be viewed as an experimental process. Not in the sense of a laboratory,

but it is an experiment on the social scale involving human objects.

4.1 Engineering as Experimentation

Experimentations is commonly recognized as playing an essential role in the design

process. Preliminary tests or simulations are conducted from the time it is decided to convert a

new engineering concept into its first rough design. Materials and processes are tried out and

usually formal experimental techniques are too. These tests serve as the basis for more detailed

designs, which too in turn are tested. At the production stage further tests are run until a finished

product evolves. Beyond those specific tests and experiments, each engineering project may be

viewed as an experiment.

4.1.1 Similarities to Standard Experiments

Different features of nearly every discipline of engineering combine to make it

appropriate to view engineering projects as experiments. First any project is carried out in partial

ignorance. There are uncertainties in the abstract model used for the design calculations, as well

as there are uncertainties in the precision of the materials processing and fabrication, and there

are uncertainties about the nature of the stresses that the finished product will encounter.

Engineers do not have the luxury of waiting until all the relevant facts are in before commencing

work. At some point, theoretical exploration and laboratory testing must be bypassed for the sake

of moving ahead on a project. One talent, crucial to an engineer’s success lies precisely in their

ability to accomplish tasks safely with only partial knowledge of scientific laws about nature and
10

society. The final outcome of engineering projects, like those of experiments, are generally

uncertain.

Often times in engineering it is not known what the possible outcomes may be, and great risks

may attend even seemingly low risk projects. Effective engineering relies upon knowledge

gained about products both before and after they leave the factory, as well as knowledge needed

for improving current products and creating better ones. That is, ongoing success in engineering

depends upon gaining new knowledge, as does ongoing success in experimentation.

4.1.2 Learning from the Past

Usually, engineers learn from their own earlier design and operating results, as well as

from those of other engineers, but unfortunately that is not always the case. A lack of established

channels of communication, misplaced pride in not asking for information, embarrassment at

failure or fear of litigation, and plain neglect often impede the flow of such information and lead

to many repetitions of past mistakes. The sinking of the Titanic is a great example of this where

the captain foolishly authorized sailing full speed at night in an area populated with many

icebergs. As well as the engineers ignoring their ethical codes and constructing a ship with

significantly less lifeboats than the ships capacity. This example illustrate why it is not enough

for engineers to simply rely on handbooks and computer programs without knowing the limits of

the tables and algorithms underlying their favorite tools. The do well to visit shop floors and

construction sites to learn from workers and testers how well the customers wishes are met.

Engineering, just like experimentation, demands practitioners who remain alert and well
11

informed at every stage of a projects history and who exchange ideas freely with colleagues in

related departments.

4.1.3 Contrasts with Standard Experiments

Engineering does differ in some respects from the standard experimentation and some of

those very differences help to highlight the engineer’s special responsibilities. Exploring the

differences can also aid our thinking about the moral responsibilities of all those engaged in

engineering. One of those differences is the experimental control aspect. In a standard

experiment this involves the selection, at random, of members for two different groups where

one receives the experimental treatment, and the other (control group) do not receive the

treatment. This is not the case in engineering because the experimental subjects are human

beings or finished and sold products out of the experimenter’s control. Clients and consumers

exercise most of the control because it is they who choose the product or item they wish to use.

Viewing engineering as an experiment on a societal scale places the focus on the human beings

affected by technology because it is performed on people. In this respect, engineering closely

resembles medical testing of new drugs or procedure on human subjects. This is where consent

comes into play, to be more specific, informed consent. Informed consent is understood as

including two main elements: knowledge and voluntariness. Subjects should be given the

information they request, and all of the information needed to make a reasonable decision.

Subjects must also enter into the experiment without being forced or deceived. A simple

purchase of a product or service does not constitute informed consent. The public must be given

information about the practical risks and benefits of the process or product in terms they can
12

understand. With this being said, engineers cannot succeed in providing essential information on

a project or product to the public unless there is cooperation by superiors and also receptivity on

the part of those who should have the information.

4.2 Engineers as Responsible Experimenters

So, what are the responsibilities of engineers to society? While engineers are the main

technical enablers or facilitators, they are far from being the sole experimenters. Their

responsibility is shared with management, the public, and others. Yet their expertise places them

in a unique position to monitor objects, identify risks, and provide clients and the public with the

information needed to make reasonable decisions. From the perspective of engineering as social

experimentation, four features characterize what it means to be a responsible person while acting

as an engineer. A conscientious commitment to live by moral values, a comprehensive

perspective, autonomy, and accountability. Each will be discussed in greater detail.

4.2.1 Conscientiousness

People act responsibly to the extent that they conscientiously commit themselves to live

according to moral values. Moving beyond this truism leads immediately to controversy over the

precise nature of those values. Moral values transcend a consuming preoccupation with a

narrowly conceived self-interest. Accordingly, individuals who think solely of their own good to

the exclusion of the good of others are not moral agents. By conscientious moral commitment we

mean a sensitivity to the full range of moral values and responsibilities relevant to a given

situation, and the willingness to develop the skill and expend the effort needed to reach the best
13

balance possible among those considerations. Conscientiousness implies consciousness: open

eyes, ears, and an open mind.

4.2.2 Comprehensive Perspective

Conscientiousness is blind without relevant information. Hence showing moral concern

involves a commitment to obtain and properly assess all available information that is pertinent to

meeting one’s moral obligations. This means, as a first step, fully grasping the context of one’s

work, which makes it count as an activity having moral import. Engineering projects are

inherently experimental in nature, they need to be monitored on an ongoing basis from the time

they are put into effect. Individual practitioners cannot privately conduct full-blown

environmental and social impact studies, but they can choose to make the extra effort needed to

keep in touch with the course of a project after it has officially left their hands. This is a mark of

personal identification with one’s work, a notion that leads to the next aspect of moral

responsibility.

4.2.3 Moral Autonomy

People are morally autonomous when their moral conduct and principles of action are

their own, in a special sense derived from Kant: Moral beliefs and attitudes should be held on the

basis oof critical reflection rather than passive adoption of the particular conventions of one’s

society, church, or profession. Viewing engineering as social experimentation can help one
14

establish a sense of autonomous participation in one’s work. As an experimenter, an engineer is

exercising the sophisticated training that forms the core of his or her identity as a professional.

4.2.4 Accountability

Finally, responsible people accept moral responsibility for their actions. Too often

“accountable” is understood in the overly narrow sense of being culpable and blame-worthy for

misdeeds. But the term more properly refers to the general disposition of being willing to submit

one’s actions to moral scrutiny and be open and responsive to the assessments of others. It

involves a willingness to resent morally cogent reasons for one’s conduct when called upon to do

so in appropriate circumstances. Do not confuse accountability with blameworthiness, and also

not to confuse casual responsibility with moral responsibility. Engineers who endorse the

perspective of engineering as a social experiment will find it more difficult to divorce themselves

psychologically from personal responsibility for their work.

4.2.5 A Balanced Outlook on Law

As viewed within our model of social experimentation, what should the role of law be in

engineering? The legal regulations that apply to engineering and other professions are becoming

more numerous and more specific all the time. We hear many complaints about this trend, and a

major effort to deregulate various spheres of our lives is currently under way. Nevertheless, we

continue to hear cries of “there ought to be a law” whenever a crisis occurs, or a special interest

is threatened. Engineering as social experimentation can provide engineers with proper

perspective on laws and regulations in that rules that govern engineering practice should not be

devised or construed as rules of a game but as rules of responsible experimentation.

4.2.6 Industrial Standards

There is one area in which industry usually welcomes greater specificity, and that is in

regard to standards. Product standards facilitate the interchange of components, they serve as

ready-made substitutes for lengthy specifications, and they decrease production costs. Standards

consist of explicit specifications that, when followed with care, ensure that stated criteria for

interchangeability and quality will be attained. Examples range from automobile tire sizes and

load ratings to computer protocols.

Table 4-1
16

Table 4-1 lists purposes of standards and gives some examples to illustrate those purposes.
17

Standards not only help the manufacturers, but they also benefit the client and the public. They

preserve some competitiveness in industry by reducing overemphasis on name brands and giving

the smaller manufacturer a chance to compete. They ensure a measure of quality and thus

facilitate more realistic trade-off decisions. Standards have been a hinderance at times. For many

years they were mostly descriptive, specifying, for instance, how many joists of what size should

support a given type of floor. Clearly such standards tended to stifle innovation. Nevertheless,

they are standards nowadays for practically everything, it seems.

Conclusion:

Engineers are to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. They also

shall perform services only in the areas of their competence. Engineering projects cannot be

treated as traditional experiments. Traditional experiments have certain variables that can be

controlled and even sometimes be performed inside a lab. Engineering projects are similar to

social experiments. Engineering projects are social experiments because they involve the public

purchasing a product manufactured by engineers. The feedback received from the public about

quality of that product will give data. There are certain regulations that engineers must follow in

order to provide a successful experimentation.

References:

1. Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (2014). Ethics in Engineering. Mcgraw-Hill Education

(India) Private Limited.